If the debates somehow changed who you were going to vote for, then you were pretty ignorant in the first place...
From the start, each debate was more or less a joke.
What is funny about last night is that the Dems are pouncing on Romney for agreeing with a lot of the President's policies last night. So what? I tend to have a more logical approach about last night's topic. If you're a governor of a State, chances are good that you'll have less experience than the POTUS when it comes to foreign policy. That's just common sense. But the Dems are making a mockery of it. Anything to keep the attacks flying. Let's be reasonable here, or is that asking too much? I know, I know... I'm asking too much.
It was actually somewhat refreshing that Romney was more collected last night, and didn't focus on attacking the POTUS. Unfortunately, the POTUS still had to make up for being a dud in the first debate.
On topic, even though I am not too happy with either choice this time around, I think Obama will be re-elected for a second term but it all depends on voter turnout. A lot of polls are hard to call because they say they poll "likely voters." I consider myself a "likely voter" and I've never been asked or surveyed who I'd vote for. I just don't believe the hype the polls create. I think a lot of people are in the same boat. Who is polled early on before the election is a somewhat different crowd than who will actually vote. It will be interesting to see the results.
Whoever actually wins, I am hoping that they truly change the direction of the country and attempt to work together, across the aisle, to make the country better. Even the VP said, there are disappointed voters out there who thought we'd be much better off than we actually are right now...
'11 BMW E92 ///M3 - ZCP and DCT
'15 Ford F-250 - Lariat, 6.7 Powerstroke Turbo-diesel
Last edited by Templar; 10-23-2012 at 09:20 AM.